When politics met science: harmony or hegemony?

Politicians are often accused of paying lip service to science. Researcher Jon Copley went behind the scenes of the UK parliament to examine the claim

Scientists, Winston Churchill once opined, should be on tap but not on top. While that comment might set some teeth on edge, it acknowledges that scientific evidence is one of many considerations in policy and government, and does not necessarily have supremacy over other matters.

But science intersects many, if not all, problems tackled by policy-makers and governments. So how well served is the UK parliament by science in its role of scrutinising proposed legislation? And from my selfish perspective as a scientist, how well served is science by parliament? To find out, I spent a week in Westminster, as part of the Royal Society’s annual parliamentary pairing scheme.

Advertisement

This year, 30 scientists from academia and industry took part and were paired with 15 civil servants, 13 members of parliament (MPs) and two members of the House of Lords. I shadowed Conservative peer John Palmer, the Earl of Selborne, whose work includes chairing the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology.

Just as important is the second chamber of parliament. In the unelected Lords, which largely exists to scrutinise the work of the Commons, a different picture emerges of the intersection between science and politics. Few countries can count Nobel prize-winning scientists among its legislators, but there are several in the Lords, plus peers with backgrounds in the likes of geology, veterinary science, biomedicine and popular-science writing.

Furthermore, the long-standing tradition of the Lords in testing ideas and challenging arguments from authority feels familiar to a scientist.

While a party or parties with a Commons majority are where real political power lies, the Lords acts as a check, even if it can ultimately be overruled. There has only been one defeat of government legislation in the Commons since 2010, but 94 rejections of government bills by the Lords in that period, to force a rethink on desirability or details.

Both houses also have permanent science and technology committees, with testimony and input from experts. And science often features in ad hoc select committees whose topics of investigation cut across departments and issues, such as events in the Arctic.

So although scientist MPs are a rare breed, parliament is better served by science than I had realised, and the subject is perhaps as well served there as it deserves given the many disciplines that inform political decisions. Of course, the system is not perfect. But to paraphrase another quip from Churchill, while our democracy may be imperfect, it is still preferable to the alternatives that have been tried.

Jon Copley is an associate professor of marine ecology at the University of Southampton, UK